ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Accountant in the year 1989 in the office of Regional Transport Office at Allahabad and has been working continuously since then. By a Government Notification dated 31st August, 1989, the cadre of Assistant Accountant and Accountant was restructured. As a result of this restructuring, 80% of the combined strength of the Assistant Accountant and Accountant were re-designated as Accountant in the pay scale of 1400-2600 with effect from 1st January, 1986 and remaining 20% were retained as an Assistant Accountant. By an order of the Transport Commissioner dated 12th September, 1995, the petitioner was re-designated as an Accountant in the pay scale of 1400-2600.

(2.) U.P. Transport Taxation (Subordinate) Services Rules, 1980 (herein after referred to as the Rules of 1980) provides for appointment on the post of Passenger/Goods Tax Superintendent. Under Rule 5(iii) of the aforesaid Rules, 50% of the post of Passenger/Goods Tax Superintendent is required to be filled up by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. The said Rule further provides that amongst the 50% seats to be filled by promotion, 15% are required to be filled by Section Officers and Noter Drafters 7% by the stenos from the office of Transport Commissioner and 14% from Head Clerks and Head Clerks-cum-Accountants and 14% by Stenographers from the regional office. The Rule further provide that the candidate should be in service for 5 years.

(3.) In the light of the aforesaid, the petitioner having completed five years of service as an Accountant became eligible for being promoted on the post of Passenger/Goods Tax Superintendent. The writ petition indicates that the petitioner made several representations starting from 2001 onwards for consideration of his claim for being promoted on the post of Passenger/Goods Tax Superintendent. When the petitioner's claim fell on deaf ears, the petitioner filed writ petition no. 42 of 2011 which was disposed of by an order dated 5.1.2011 directing the petitioner to make an appropriate representation before the authority concerned which would be decided by a reasoned and speaking order. Pursuant to the said direction, the respondents passed an order dated 28th March, 2011 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned order, has filed the present writ petition.